Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I was thinking earlier about, generally speaking, what makes for interesting characters. Obviously the idea of them seeming like real people is key, but to boil it down further, what makes them seem real? Is it their flaws? The great Trek characters are all pretty flawed:

Kirk: Cocky
Spock: Lies to himself about how logical he is, sometimes refuses to see the value in emotion
McCoy: Hot tempered

Picard: Distant
Data: Doesn't understand the emotions of others

Is being flawed/showing flaws what separates great characters like these from fun but less beloved characters like Sulu or Riker?

It's not just about being flawed. It's about being flesh-and-blood human beings, with vices and virtues, strengths and weaknesses, conflicting emotions and priorities, moments of determination and moments of doubt.

That was the great thing about Kirk. He wasn't just a perfect paragon of virtue. He lost his temper sometimes, could be plagued by guilt or doubt, but he could also be cool under pressure and maintain a sense of humor most of the time. He was a complete character who sweated and bled and made mistakes sometimes, but always came through the end.

Dukat isn't a great character because he's a sociopath, he's a great character because of the way he talks the talk of a tragic hero and kind of almost convinces you he's not a sociopath, if you stop paying attention to his actions.

It's not flaws that make a character great. It's the greater picture of the character, the pattern of behavior that in one situation is a virtue and in another situation is a flaw. It's what makes a character different and unique, known but unpredictable, as if they're a real person and you can't wait to see what they'll do next.

Picard by his age and old school intellectual aloofness makes him different from any other scifi hero, but nobody but Stewart could have made it work. Imagine anyone else sounding cool ordering earl grey tea.

I was thinking earlier about, generally speaking, what makes for interesting characters. Obviously the idea of them seeming like real people is key, but to boil it down further, what makes them seem real? Is it their flaws? The great Trek characters are all pretty flawed:

Kirk: Cocky
Spock: Lies to himself about how logical he is, sometimes refuses to see the value in emotion
McCoy: Hot tempered

Picard: Distant
Data: Doesn't understand the emotions of others

Is being flawed/showing flaws what separates great characters like these from fun but less beloved characters like Sulu or Riker?

I don't see them as flaws. Calling them flaws implies that they would be stronger, more admirable, or generally better people without these traits, which I don't think is true. We saw this exact argument unfold in "The Enemy Within" - all these characters need their "flaws" in order to be effective at their jobs and in their relationships. A non-cocky Kirk is one without the power of command.

I think it's the very fact that so many of the characters are at peace with their traits that make them engaging and interesting. Instead of angst-ing over their flaws (Spock and Data excepted, on some level), they put them to good use, something we all can aspire to.

Character flaws and character traits make good characters real. That makes for a much more enjoyable read. None of us are perfect and it is good (sometimes) if there are things we see in the characters that we also may see (or want to see) in ourselves.

Depends on the flaw and how its used. Cable TV in particular sure is in love with flawed characters so they've become symbolic of "better" drama.

Kirk being cocky wasn't a signal flaw for him because it never seemed to cause him inordinant problems. His signal flaw, if he had one, was being overly dedicated to Starfleet, to the exception of his personal life. That theme popped up every so often as a source of angst for him.

But Kirk was not so much the standard flawed individual so much as a fascinatingly complicated person. Anyone who could be both too cocky and too serious has got a lot going on. Ditto for his girl-in-every-port attitude contrasted with his apparently sincere caring for his crew...that's not an emotionally shallow person there.

Spock was more of the flawed-type with the single, signal flaw, and that was also used to good effect. I see a lot more Spock types of characters vs Kirks in fiction. Probably easier to focus on the signal flaw of a Spock type when writing him vs trying to corrall all the complexity of a Kirk.

The one thing you don't want in a character (unless its a comedy) is a flaw that elicits contempt from the audience. A character can be a strutting egomaniac like Dukat and still have fans because he's not a weakling.

I'll have to drag in poor Anakin Skywalker one more time for a counter-example: he was also a psycho, but the wrong kind, a weakling - stupid and overly dependent on the emotional support of others. All Lucas had to do was write the guy like Dukat and cast an actor to suit, and maybe it still wouldn't have worked but it wouldn't have flopped quite so badly.